October 2006 - openSUSE Packaging - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[opensuse-packaging] No libstdc++.la on 10.2
by Pascal Bleser 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Seems someone decided to remove /usr/%{_lib}/libstdc++.la on 10.2... ? At least it's not in any of the following packages: # rpm -qa | grep libstdc++ libstdc++41-4.1.2_20061018-4 libstdc++41-32bit-4.1.2_20061018-4 compat-libstdc++-5.0.7-33 libstdc++-devel-4.1.3-18 libstdc++41-devel-4.1.2_20061018-4 # rpm -ql libstdc++41-4.1.2_20061018-4 | grep "\.la" # rpm -ql libstdc++41-32bit-4.1.2_20061018-4 | grep "\.la" # rpm -ql compat-libstdc++-5.0.7-33 | grep "\.la" # rpm -ql libstdc++-devel-4.1.3-18 | grep "\.la" # rpm -ql libstdc++41-devel-4.1.2_20061018-4 | grep "\.la" # rpm -ql libstdc++41-devel-4.1.2_20061018-4 | grep "\.la" Any particular reason ? Is it somewhere else ? I sure hope it wasn't "optimized" away because it breaks other packages that need that .la :\ If it's not somewhere else, I'll file a (major) bug. cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <pascal.bleser(a)skynet.be> <guru(a)unixtech.be> _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFQS8tr3NMWliFcXcRAtcrAJwKVyZQcRJaLysU4/0XF1Ym4rJesgCfQpYs P2jv7/TDFQDKCuJc9H7AiBk= =JrYQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

5 6

[opensuse-packaging] Update source breaks it all..
by Anders Norrbring 07 Nov '06

07 Nov '06

I just added a source for updates, mirrored locally and I've run createrepo on the dir. So, I added it in the config like this: url_suse="file:/iscsi/Archives/SuSE/inst_source/10.1" url_updates="file:/iscsi/Archives/SuSE/inst_source/10.1_up" add_sources="suse updates" So, then I tried to do a build, and this came out (hundreds of lines deleted).. root dir set to /store3/build.root.10.1-x86_64 running from system no ATTENTION: this is a one way ticket. Resetting this to true has not effect! initializing installation sources ... initializing target ... rebuilding RPM database ..................................................... ok reading RPM database ........................................................ ok Known sources: 0: [x] SUSE Linux 10.1 (file:/iscsi/Archives/SuSE/inst_source/10.1) 1: [x] file:/iscsi/Archives/SuSE/inst_source/10.1_up/ (file:/iscsi/Archives/SuSE/inst_source/10.1_up) [autorefresh] debug disabled 90 packages to install unresolvable dependencies: *** Conflicts *** Name: /bin/sh(*) Edition: EDITION-UNSPEC Referers: aaa_base-10.1-41 requires /bin/sh, Not-Available: any Name: /bin/bash(*) Edition: EDITION-UNSPEC Referers: aaa_base-10.1-41 requires /bin/bash, bind-utils-9.3.2-17 requires /bin/bash, groff-1.18.1.1-29 requires /bin/bash, less-394-12 requires /bin/bash, module-init-tools-3. 2.2-32.13 requires /bin/bash, perl-5.8.8-12 requires /bin/bash, pwdutils-3.0.7.1-17 requires /bin/bash, rpm-4.4.2-43.4 requires /bin/bash, util-linux-2.12r-35 requires /bin/bash Not-Available: any Ideas please.... -- Anders Norrbring Norrbring Consulting

4 16

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building RPMs for different versions of OS
by Marcus Rueckert 26 Oct '06

26 Oct '06

On 2006-10-26 12:35:30 +0200, Dominique Leuenberger wrote: > The VLC Team is looking for official packages with own support (with a > set of defined libs and compiler parameters). And thus the work has to > be redone in that way. hmm you will still duplicate work. i think it would be more useful to improve the cooperation with the existing packagers. reviewing their packages. helping them to push the needed patches upstream. getting aware of the problems when packaging VLC. all that doesnt require duplicating the package. and it might add confusion for users. > But don't worry for that: The packages for VLC are not that difficult > once you find all the deps to put it :-) thats just one part. more important is fixing for 64bit or little endian vs big endian. upstream support for biarch installations (lib vs lib64 or lib32(not found on linux but on irix/aix iirc)). darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

1 0

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Building RPMs for different versions of OS
by Dominique Leuenberger 26 Oct '06

26 Oct '06

>>> Reply on 26-10-2006 13:19:59 <<<> On 2006-10-26 12:07:37 +0200, Dominique Leuenberger wrote: > > Just for me to be sure (and not to miss something): > > Do I require an installation of every OS Version / Arch that I want > to > > create packages for? > > > > As I just became the official package manager of a video client > > everybody knows (3letter) for SUSE Linux Versions, we'd like to offer > > packages of course for as many archs and versions as possible. > > > > But then again, my hardware availability (and budget to change this) > > are very limited (versions could be installed in virtual machines). > > > > Do I see this right or is there a 'way around' ? > > packman has vlc already. iirc > > why duplicate the work? > The VLC Team is looking for official packages with own support (with a set of defined libs and compiler parameters). And thus the work has to be redone in that way. But don't worry for that: The packages for VLC are not that difficult once you find all the deps to put it :-) Dominique TMF is a global management and accounting outsourcing firm with 72 offices in 56 countries and over 1,800 professionals (September 2006). TMF is expanding rapidly throughout the world. Learn more about our unique network and our services and visit our website at www.tmf-group.com. The information contained in this e-mail communication is confidential and solely intended for the person to whom it is addressed. If someone other than the intended recipient should receive or come into possession of this e-mail communication, he/she will not be entitled to read, disseminate, disclose or duplicate it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to notify the sender and to destroy the original e-mail communication. TMF is neither liable for the correct and complete transmission of the information contained in this e-mail communication nor for any delay in its receipt. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for the presence of computer viruses.

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] Building RPMs for different versions of OS
by Dominique Leuenberger 26 Oct '06

26 Oct '06

Hi, Just for me to be sure (and not to miss something): Do I require an installation of every OS Version / Arch that I want to create packages for? As I just became the official package manager of a video client everybody knows (3letter) for SUSE Linux Versions, we'd like to offer packages of course for as many archs and versions as possible. But then again, my hardware availability (and budget to change this) are very limited (versions could be installed in virtual machines). Do I see this right or is there a 'way around' ? Dominique

2 1

[opensuse-packaging] Python based program / Files section
by Dominique Leuenberger 25 Oct '06

25 Oct '06

Hi everybody, as quiet a n00b in packaging, I;m in progress of packaging gnome-sudoku (will be found in games:puzzle. The package works good so far, EXCEPT for opensuse-factory. The reason is tracked down, I'm just missing a good solution, that I might like (introducing a variable using an %if construct is not what I'd like) So the problem: The program get's installed to /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/gnome_sudoku and thus, in my files section, I have %{_prefix}/lib/python2.4/site-packages/gnome_sudoku But as Factory switched to Python 2.5, of course the install path is different (the install script realizez it, and copies it to [...]python2.5[...] How can I adjust the %Files - Section to reflect this 'Multi-Version' aware? Thanks for your help! Dominique

3 2

[opensuse-packaging] htlatex and/or tex4ht
by John Janmaat 20 Oct '06

20 Oct '06

Hello, I'm in the midst of trying to convert a LaTeX document to MSWord. I cannot find a recent rpm adding htlatex and/or tex4ht to the tetex system contained in SuSE 10.1 or OpenSuSE 10.1. Has this been done by anyone? Thanks, John. -- ============================================================================ Dr. John Janmaat Tel: 902-585-1461 Department of Economics Fax: 902-585-1070 Acadia University, Email: jjanmaat(a)acadiau.ca Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. Web: ace.acadiau.ca/~jjanmaat/ B4P 1H5 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] exiv2 reveal
by Pavel Nemec 20 Oct '06

20 Oct '06

I am going to pack those two packages in KDE:community if nobody have done package before. Pavel -- Pavel Nemec package-maintainer http://en.opensuse.org/Czech_Packagers_Team --------------------------------------------------------------------- SuSE CR, s.r.o. e-mail: pnemec(a)suse.cz Lihovarska 1060/12 tel:+420 2 9654 2373 190 00 Praha 9 fax:+420 2 9654 2374 Ceska republika http://www.suse.cz

7 15

[opensuse-packaging] ait radeon mobile 9000
by Holbrook, Robert C 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

are there any plans to add support in xgl (desktop effects) for the ati radeon mobile 9000? Bob Holbrook Infrastructure System Technician Discovery Park, Purdue University (765) 496 - 8302 rholbroo(a)purdue.edu

1 0

Re: [opensuse-packaging] exiv2 reveal
by Pavel Nemec 18 Oct '06

18 Oct '06

Dne Wednesday 18 October 2006 14:45 jste napsal(a): > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 02:45:19PM +0200, Pavel Nemec wrote: > > > Well, most of them are in libexif too... So why not enhance libexif but > > > > I do not think so because exiv2 is updated very often, and updates usualy > > contain informations about new cameras, but i do not know libexif much. > > > > > create yet another library ? > > > > It is much easier to pack exiv2 than port back to libexif IMHO. > > > > > *sigh* > > > > Ok, i give up. I see the point, too much same libraries doing similar > > jobs is not good idea. > > No, please package it... ;) libexif is pretty dead. > > It was just a general sighing ;) Well it is allready packed. But question is if should be moved into AB ? Pavel -- Pavel Nemec package-maintainer http://en.opensuse.org/Czech_Packagers_Team --------------------------------------------------------------------- SuSE CR, s.r.o. e-mail: pnemec(a)suse.cz Lihovarska 1060/12 tel:+420 2 9654 2373 190 00 Praha 9 fax:+420 2 9654 2374 Ceska republika http://www.suse.cz

1 0

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Updates of packages (right numbering scheme?)
by Dominique Leuenberger 18 Oct '06

18 Oct '06

>>> Marcus Meissner <meissner(a)suse.de> 18-10-2006 14:24 >>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 01:26:30PM +0200, Dominique Leuenberger wrote: > Hi, > > I have created packages for SuperTuxKart 0.2rc2 and then for > SuperTuxKart 0.2 (obsoleteing 0.2rc2) (only home: repo up to now) > > RUG and other tools don't recognize 0.2 being newer as 0.2rc2 > > What suggestion can you give me for future Numbering schemes of > RC-Releases? > >The upstream project should do so... > >0.1.99rc2 I would have used for the RC ;) Thanks Marcus, I'll get in touch with the upstream maintainers for this. Hopefully for the next release, it will be adopted. Would 0.2.0 be treated newer as 0.2rc2? Dominique

2 1

[opensuse-packaging] Updates of packages (right numbering scheme?)
by Dominique Leuenberger 18 Oct '06

18 Oct '06

Hi, I have created packages for SuperTuxKart 0.2rc2 and then for SuperTuxKart 0.2 (obsoleteing 0.2rc2) (only home: repo up to now) RUG and other tools don't recognize 0.2 being newer as 0.2rc2 What suggestion can you give me for future Numbering schemes of RC-Releases? Thanks for an advise, Dominique

3 2

[opensuse-packaging] brasero ?
by Pascal Bleser 14 Oct '06

14 Oct '06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anyone already packaging "brasero" (used to be named "bonfire") ? http://gnomefiles.org/app.php/Brasero - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <pascal.bleser(a)skynet.be> <guru(a)unixtech.be> _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFMRwpr3NMWliFcXcRApPZAJ95NbTLEsZCOXwSDtDPXIxHFoDMlACfTUwv cLgiob0PcntpIpnjKyXVRXE= =aItd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] question on packaging and gconf failures
by Rauch Christian 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello List, today I packaged the newly released Gnucash 2.0.2, but it failed this time, whereas 2.0.1 worked just fine. The following error caused the build (or better make install) to stop: > mkdir -p /var/tmp/gnucash-compiler/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults > GCONF_CONFIG_SOURCE=xml::/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults > /opt/gnome/bin/gconftool-2 --makefile-install-rule > apps_gnucash_history.schemas > Failed to load source "xml::/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults": Failed: > Could not make directory `/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults': No such file > or directory After asking back on gnucash-devel, this issue could be resolved by adding the following line just before "%__make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}" > export GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTALL=1 According to http://www.gnome.org/projects/gconf/ (Section Application developer information), this is known and they tell a workaround there. Is this the established way to workaround this or is there a "suse way" to do this? Thanks, Christian Rauch -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFKj20ayhvFxrDZlkRApjmAJ9VwD/S5i58FFLSez2TUN8z1fe3VgCdEi8S UeYuGMMXSlmk3zRkoA0dF34= =bMbt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

2 2

[opensuse-packaging] Packaging kernel module with conflicting file
by Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

Is there a way I can build a package which would install a new kernel module that already exists on the kernel-default package? AFAIK, the packages would conflict with an error telling that the file already exists. Anyone know a solution for that? LKM maybe? I wish to build a package with the prebuilt module so that the user doesn't need to build it by himself. TIA -- % Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) % mteixeira{a}webset{d}net <> Maceio/AL/BR % http://mteixeira.webset.net <> http://pmping.sf.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

2 1

[opensuse-packaging] Gnome/KDE Path
by Andreas Schneider 03 Oct '06

03 Oct '06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, what will be the Gnome and KDE path in openSUSE 10.2? Bye, -- andreas - -- http://www.cynapses.org/ - cybernetic synapses -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE8wMlf94+j/M+P8YRAnH4AKCUITnaSxeCyFQLLzmnLcSHuxMgEwCcDqk0 MtgbCS2WdDguDrYPd6sTGw0= =KUH4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

6 9

[opensuse-packaging] Differencies between tools?
by Anders Norrbring 02 Oct '06

02 Oct '06

I've been thinking a little.. What's the differencies between building packages with y2pmbuild and build? I'd like the best of the worlds.. I'd like to build several architectures in one run (build), but I'd also like to have the packages signed and dumped to the repositary I'm building. One problem is that it appears as the rpm's doesn't get signed.. I have to dig into that a bit more, I'm setting some traps in the y2pmbuild script to see if I can find something out.. I guess a script running 'y2pmbuild-10.1' and then 'linux32 y2pmbuild' would do the trick, but I'd like to know which exit codes y2pmbuild generates for failure and success. -- Anders Norrbring Norrbring Consulting

4 13